Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제22권7호
  • /
  • Pages.1034-1043
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reliability of Coronary Artery Calcium Severity Assessment on Non-Electrocardiogram-Gated CT: A Meta-Analysis

  • Jin Young Kim (Department of Radiology, Dongsan Hospital, Keimyung University College of Medicine) ;
  • Young Joo Suh (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kyunghwa Han (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Byoung Wook Choi (Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2020.08.23
  • 심사 : 2020.12.01
  • 발행 : 2021.07.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the pooled agreements of the coronary artery calcium (CAC) severities assessed by electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated and non-ECG-gated CT and evaluate the impact of the scan parameters. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched. A modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Meta-analytic methods were utilized to determine the pooled weighted bias, limits of agreement (LOA), and the correlation coefficient of the CAC scores or the weighted kappa for the categorization of the CAC severities detected by the two modalities. The heterogeneity among the studies was also assessed. Subgroup analyses were performed based on factors that could affect the measurement of the CAC score and severity: slice thickness, reconstruction kernel, and radiation dose for non-ECG-gated CT. Results: A total of 4000 patients from 16 studies were included. The pooled bias was 62.60, 95% LOA were -36.19 to 161.40, and the pooled correlation coefficient was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.97) for the CAC score. The pooled weighted kappa of the CAC severity was 0.85 (95% CI = 0.79-0.91). Heterogeneity was observed in the studies (I2 > 50%, p < 0.1). In the subgroup analysis, the agreement between the CAC categorizations was better when the two CT examinations had reconstructions based on the same slice thickness and kernel. Conclusion: The pooled agreement of the CAC severities assessed by the ECG-gated and non-ECG-gated CT was excellent; however, it was significantly affected by scan parameters, such as slice thickness and the reconstruction kernel.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (2018R1C1B6007251).

참고문헌

  1. Detrano R, Guerci AD, Carr JJ, Bild DE, Burke G, Folsom AR, et al. Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1336-1345 
  2. Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, Doherty TM, Detrano RC. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA 2004;291:210-215 
  3. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, Beam C, Birtcher KK, Blumenthal RS, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:e285-e350 
  4. Greenland P, Blaha MJ, Budoff MJ, Erbel R, Watson KE. Coronary calcium score and cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:434-447 
  5. Reiter MJ, Nemesure A, Madu E, Reagan L, Plank A. Frequency and distribution of incidental findings deemed appropriate for S modifier designation on low-dose CT in a lung cancer screening program. Lung Cancer 2018;120:1-6 
  6. Chiles C, Duan F, Gladish GW, Ravenel JG, Baginski SG, Snyder BS, et al. Association of coronary artery calcification and mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial: a comparison of three scoring methods. Radiology 2015;276:82-90 
  7. Shemesh J, Henschke CI, Shaham D, Yip R, Farooqi AO, Cham MD, et al. Ordinal scoring of coronary artery calcifications on low-dose CT scans of the chest is predictive of death from cardiovascular disease. Radiology 2010;257:541-548 
  8. Phillips WJ, Johnson C, Law A, Turek M, Small AR, Dent S, et al. Comparison of Framingham risk score and chest-CT identified coronary artery calcification in breast cancer patients to predict cardiovascular events. Int J Cardiol 2019;289:138-143 
  9. Budoff MJ, Lutz SM, Kinney GL, Young KA, Hokanson JE, Barr RG, et al. Coronary artery calcium on noncontrast thoracic computerized tomography scans and all-cause mortality. Circulation 2018;138:2437-2438 
  10. Hecht HS, Cronin P, Blaha MJ, Budoff MJ, Kazerooni EA, Narula J, et al. 2016 SCCT/STR guidelines for coronary artery calcium scoring of noncontrast noncardiac chest CT scans: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and Society of Thoracic Radiology. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2017;11:74-84 
  11. Xie X, Zhao Y, de Bock GH, de Jong PA, Mali WP, Oudkerk M, et al. Validation and prognosis of coronary artery calcium scoring in nontriggered thoracic computed tomography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:514-521 
  12. Kim SM, Chung MJ, Lee KS, Choe YH, Yi CA, Choe BK. Coronary calcium screening using low-dose lung cancer screening: effectiveness of MDCT with retrospective reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:917-922 
  13. Wan YL, Tsay PK, Wu PW, Juan YH, Tsai HY, Lin CY, et al. Impact of filter convolution and displayed field of view on estimation of coronary Agatston scores in low-dose lung computed tomography. Int J Cardiol 2017;236:451-457 
  14. Huang YL, Wu FZ, Wang YC, Ju YJ, Mar GY, Chuo CC, et al. Reliable categorisation of visual scoring of coronary artery calcification on low-dose CT for lung cancer screening: validation with the standard Agatston score. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1226-1233 
  15. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-396 
  16. Arcadi T, Maffei E, Sverzellati N, Mantini C, Guaricci AI, Tedeschi C, et al. Coronary artery calcium score on low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening. World J Radiol 2014;6:381-387 
  17. Christensen JL, Sharma E, Gorvitovskaia AY, Watts JP Jr, Assali M, Neverson J, et al. Impact of slice thickness on the predictive value of lung cancer screening computed tomography in the evaluation of coronary artery calcification. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e010110 
  18. Azour L, Kadoch MA, Ward TJ, Eber CD, Jacobi AH. Estimation of cardiovascular risk on routine chest CT: ordinal coronary artery calcium scoring as an accurate predictor of Agatston score ranges. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2017;11:8-15 
  19. Chandra D, Gupta A, Leader JK, Fitzpatrick M, Kingsley LA, Kleerup E, et al. Assessment of coronary artery calcium by chest CT compared with EKG-gated cardiac CT in the multicenter AIDS cohort study. PLoS One 2017;12:e0176557 
  20. Einstein AJ, Johnson LL, Bokhari S, Son J, Thompson RC, Bateman TM, et al. Agreement of visual estimation of coronary artery calcium from low-dose CT attenuation correction scans in hybrid PET/CT and SPECT/CT with standard Agatston score. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:1914-1921 
  21. Kim YK, Sung YM, Cho SH, Park YN, Choi HY. Reliability analysis of visual ranking of coronary artery calcification on low-dose CT of the thorax for lung cancer screening: comparison with ECG-gated calcium scoring CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;30 Suppl 2:81-87 
  22. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-536 
  23. Williamson PR, Lancaster GA, Craig JV, Smyth RL. Meta-analysis of method comparison studies. Stat Med 2002;21:2013-2025 
  24. IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:25 
  25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-1558 
  26. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-188 
  27. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-634 
  28. Bailey G, Healy A, Young BD, Sharma E, Meadows J, Chun HJ, et al. Relative predictive value of lung cancer screening CT versus myocardial perfusion attenuation correction CT in the evaluation of coronary calcium. PLoS One 2017;12:e0175678 
  29. Budoff MJ, Nasir K, Kinney GL, Hokanson JE, Barr RG, Steiner R, et al. Coronary artery and thoracic calcium on noncontrast thoracic CT scans: comparison of ungated and gated examinations in patients from the COPD Gene cohort. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2011;5:113-118 
  30. Chen Y, Hu Z, Li M, Jia Y, He T, Liu Z, et al. Comparison of nongated chest CT and dedicated calcium scoring CT for coronary calcium quantification using a 256-dector row CT scanner. Acad Radiol 2019;26:e267-e274 
  31. Fan R, Shi X, Qian Y, Wang Y, Fan L, Chen R, et al. Optimized categorization algorithm of coronary artery calcification score on non-gated chest low-dose CT screening using iterative model reconstruction technique. Clin Imaging 2018;52:287-291 
  32. Hutt A, Duhamel A, Deken V, Faivre JB, Molinari F, Remy J, et al. Coronary calcium screening with dual-source CT: reliability of ungated, high-pitch chest CT in comparison with dedicated calcium-scoring CT. Eur Radiol 2016;26:1521-1528 
  33. Kirsch J, Buitrago I, Mohammed TL, Gao T, Asher CR, Novaro GM. Detection of coronary calcium during standard chest computed tomography correlates with multi-detector computed tomography coronary artery calcium score. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;28:1249-1256 
  34. Wu MT, Yang P, Huang YL, Chen JS, Chuo CC, Yeh C, et al. Coronary arterial calcification on low-dose ungated MDCT for lung cancer screening: concordance study with dedicated cardiac CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:923-928 
  35. Muhlenbruch G, Thomas C, Wildberger JE, Koos R, Das M, Hohl C, et al. Effect of varying slice thickness on coronary calcium scoring with multislice computed tomography in vitro and in vivo. Invest Radiol 2005;40:695-699 
  36. Geyer LL, Schoepf UJ, Meinel FG, Nance JW Jr, Bastarrika G, Leipsic JA, et al. State of the art: iterative CT reconstruction techniques. Radiology 2015;276:339-357 
  37. van der Bijl N, de Bruin PW, Geleijns J, Bax JJ, Schuijf JD, de Roos A, et al. Assessment of coronary artery calcium by using volumetric 320-row multi-detector computed tomography: comparison of 0.5 mm with 3.0 mm slice reconstructions. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;26:473-482 
  38. ACR NRDR - LCSR exam form. Nrdrsupport. Acr.org Web site. https://nrdrsupport.acr.org/support/solutions/articles/11000041249?_ga=2.141997808.373020462.1559750799-1976387718.1559750799. Accessed March 10, 2020 
  39. Htwe Y, Cham MD, Henschke CI, Hecht H, Shemesh J, Liang M, et al. Coronary artery calcification on low-dose computed tomography: comparison of Agatston and Ordinal Scores. Clin Imaging 2015;39:799-802 
  40. Hecht H, Blaha MJ, Berman DS, Nasir K, Budoff M, Leipsic J, et al. Clinical indications for coronary artery calcium scoring in asymptomatic patients: expert consensus statement from the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 2017;11:157-168 
  41. Bankier AA, MacMahon H, Goo JM, Rubin GD, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Naidich DP. Recommendations for measuring pulmonary nodules at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2017;285:584-600 
  42. de Vos BD, Wolterink JM, Leiner T, de Jong PA, Lessmann N, Isgum I. Direct automatic coronary calcium scoring in cardiac and chest CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2019;38:2127-2138